Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Building footprints”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Model America: Data and Models for every U.S. Building

The 5-year goal of the “Model America” concept was to generate a model of every building in the United States. This data repository delivers on that goal with "Model America v1". Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has developed the Automatic Building Energy Modeling (AutoBEM) software suite to process multiple types of data, extract building-specific descriptors, generate building energy models, and simulate them on High Performance Computing (HPC) resources. For more information, see AutoBEM-related publications (bit.ly/AutoBEM). There were 125,715,609 buildings detected in the United States. Of this number, 122,146,671 (97.2%) buildings resulted in a successful generation and simulation of a building energy model. This dataset includes the full 125 million buildings. Future updates may include additional buildings, data improvements, or other algorithmic model enhancements in "Model America v2". This dataset contains OSM and IDF zip files for every U.S. county. Each zip file contains the generated buildings from that county. The .csv input data contains the following data fields: 1. ID - the Unique Building Identifier (UBID), generated using the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) BuildingID framework 2. Centroid - building center location in latitude/longitude (from Footprint2D) 3. Footprint2D - building polygon of 2D footprint (lat1/lon1_lat2/lon2_...) 4. State_abbr - state name 5. Area - estimate of total conditioned floor area (ft2) 6. Area2D - footprint area (ft2) 7. Height - building height (ft) 8. NumFloors - number of floors (above-grade) 9. WWR_surfaces - percent of each facade (pair of points from Footprint2D) covered by fenestration/windows (average 14.5% for residential, 40% for commercial buildings) 10. CZ - ASHRAE Climate Zone designation 11. BuildingType - DOE prototype building designation (IECC=residential) as implemented by OpenStudio-standards 12. Standard - building vintage This data is made free and openly available in hopes of stimulating any simulation-informed use case. Data is provided as-is with no warranties, express or implied, regarding fitness for a particular purpose. We wish to thank our sponsors which include Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD), U.S. Dept. of Energy’s (DOE) Building Technologies Office (BTO), Office of Electricity (OE), Biological and Environmental Research (BER), and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Update (September 23, 2025): We corrected the ID field in all state-level.csv input files to ensure one-to-one consistency with the corresponding .osm and .idf output files. The schema and file structure are unchanged; only the values in the ID column were modified. No files were added or removed, and the .zip bundles (containing .osm / .idf) are unchanged. The corrected .csv inputs were re-extracted in March 2025 from the original data generated ~ 2021 (Theta supercomputer runs), and published here to align input IDs with model outputs. Update (September 6, 2026): The Model America dataset was updated to replace the previous building ID field with the Unique Building Identifier (UBID), using the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) BuildingID framework. UBIDs provide standardized, location-based identifiers for individual building footprints and improve interoperability with other building and geospatial datasets. The data files containing the previous building identifiers were updated to include UBIDs. This update standardizes building identification; the underlying Model America building characteristics and energy simulation results were not recomputed as part of this update.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Building heights and urban canopy parameters for urban modeling

GLObal Building heights for Urban Studies (UT-GLOBUS) is a random forest model based framework that provides a level-of-detail-1 (LoD-1) building height dataset. The primary objective of UT-GLOBUS is not to precisely predict the height and footprint of individual buildings, but rather to offer a functional framework for generating building level information using open-source datasets for modeling applications. Specifically, UT-GLOBUS is tailored to meet the requirements of deriving urban canopy parameters (UCPs) for the multi-layer model within the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model and building heights for the SOLWEIG and SUEWS model. Building-level data is accessible in vector file format (GeoPackage: .gpkg), which can be converted into raster file format (geoTIFF). The vector files employ the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection. The vector files are compatible with GIS platforms like QGIS and ArcGIS, and can be imported for analysis using programming languages such as Python. We are also providing UCPs required by the multi-layer urban model in the urban WRF in binary file format. Additionally, we provide the urban fractions calculated using ESA world cover dataset (https://esa-worldcover.org/en) for WRF model in binary file format. These binary files can be directly incorporated into the WRF pre-processing system (WPS).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Developing a Database of Bio-based Materials for Building Envelope Applications

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has been funded by the Department of Energy (DOE) to help accelerate the introduction of building envelope materials that would reduce the carbon footprint of the buildings sector. The DOE’s Building Technologies Office has historically sought to resolve the knowledge gaps regarding the energy efficiency and moisture durability of building envelope systems and to develop the data, guidance, and tools needed to facilitate rapid industry adoption of high-performance, moisture-managed envelope systems. This project will help accelerate the widespread acceptance of a new generation of building materials developed specifically with the intent of reducing the carbon footprint of buildings. We have produced a database of hygrothermal transport properties on low embodied carbon building materials that can be added to energy and durability simulation tools. Properties that were measured include density, heat capacity, thermal conductivity as a function of temperature and relative humidity, moisture dependent permeance, and sorption isotherms as a function of relative humidity. These data sets were measured following consensus national standards using state-of-the-art facilities. The data has been compiled and is being made available to building designers who require these data to assess these new materials in their designs. We will publish the data and seek its addition to reference databases such as the ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2021

Model America - data and models of every U.S. building

The 5-year goal of the 'Model America' concept was to generate a model of every building in the United States. This data repository delivers on that goal. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has developed the Automatic Building Energy Modeling (AutoBEM) software suite to process multiple types of data, extract building-specific descriptors, generate building energy models, and simulate them on High Performance Computing (HPC) resources. For more information, see AutoBEM-related publications (bit.ly/AutoBEM). There were 125,714,640 buildings detected in the United States and this dataset contains 122,930,327 (97.8%) buildings which resulted in a successful simulation. Future, annual updates have been proposed that may include additional buildings, data improvements, or other algorithmic enhancements. This dataset of 122.9 million buildings includes: Models (state_county.zip) - OpenStudio (v3.1.0) and EnergyPlus (v9.4) building energy models. Please note that the download requires the free Globus Connect Personal (https://www.globus.org/globus-connect-personal); Each model has approximately 3,000 building input descriptors that can be extracted. Please see the EnergyPlus(v9.4) 2,784-page Input/Output Reference Guide (https://energyplus.net/sites/all/modules/custom/nrel_custom/pdfs/pdfs_v9.4.0/InputOutputReference.pdf) for everything that can be retrieved or simulated from these models. These models were derived from the following metadata, which is not included in this dataset: 1. ID - unique building ID 2. County - county name 3. State - state name 4. CZ - ASHRAE Climate Zone designation 5. Clim_Zone - text label of climate zone 6. est_year - estimated year of construction 7. est_commercial - estimated building type (0=residential, 1=commercial) 8. Centroid - building center location in latitude/longitude (from Footprint2D) 9. Footprint2D - building polygon of 2D footprint (lat1/lon1_lat2/lon2_...) 10. Height - building height (meters) 11. Area2D - footprint area (ft2) 12. BuildingType - DOE prototype building designation (IECC=residential) as implemented by OpenStudio-standards 13. WWR_surfaces - percent of each facade (pair of points from Footprint2D) covered by fenestration/windows (average 14.5% for residential, 40% for commercial buildings) 14. NumFloors - number of floors (above-grade) 15. Area - estimate of total conditioned floor area (ft2) 16. Standard - building vintage. These models are made free and openly available in hopes of stimulating any simulation-informed use case. Data is provided as-is with no warranties, express or implied, regarding fitness for a particular purpose. We wish to thank our sponsors which include Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD), U.S. Dept. of Energy's (DOE) Building Technologies Office (BTO), Office of Electricity (OE), Biological and Environmental Research (BER), and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). This research used resources of the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, which is a DOE Office of Science User Facility supported under Contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. Please cite as: New, Joshua R., Adams, Mark, Bass, Brett, Berres, Anne, and Clinton, Nicholas (2021). 'Model America - data and models of every U.S. building. [Data set].' Constellation, doi.ccs.ornl.gov/ui/doi/339, April 14, 2021

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2026

An Online Tool for Preliminary Design and Techno-Economic Analysis of District Geothermal Heating and Cooling Systems

District geothermal heating and cooling systems (DGHCS) have significant benefits for reducing energy consumption as well as building- and grid-level peak electric demand. Currently, no publicly available tools are available to effectively design and conduct techno-economic analysis of DGHCS. GeoWISE was originally developed for preliminary design and techno-economic analysis of geothermal heating and cooling systems in an individual commercial or residential building. This paper introduces recent upgrades of GeoWISE that allow users to design and conduct techno-economic analysis of DGHCS. Several new features are implemented in GeoWISE to allow selection and specification of multiple new or existing buildings. A database of information for over 125 million existing U.S. buildings was used in GeoWISE that allows users easily locate existing buildings of interest based on street addresses, and optionally edit information of the buildings (e.g., footprint, vintage, principal functions, number of floors, window-to-wall ratio). Unique energy simulation models of the selected buildings are then automatically created using the Automatic Building Energy Modeling (AutoBEM) and EnergyPlus simulations are performed to predict thermal loads of the buildings. A simplified DGHCS is then designed and simulated to predict its energy use. A central borehole heat exchanger (BHE) of the DGHCS is sized using the RowWise algorithm of GHEDesigner to meet the thermal loads within user-specified land areas for installing BHE. The upgraded GeoWISE reports the needed capacity of heating and cooling equipment in each building, design of the central BHE, energy consumption reduction, and energy cost saving resulting from using DGHCS compared with conventional HVAC systems. A case study is showcased using the upgraded GeoWISE to design and conduct techno-economic analysis of a simplified DGHCS.

Prem Anand Jayaprabha, Jyothis Anand [ORNL] (ORCID↗
DOE OSTI2023

Mechanistic modeling of copper corrosions in data center environments

Air-side economizers are increasingly used to take advantage of “free-cooling” in data centers with the intent of reducing the carbon footprint of buildings. However, they can introduce outdoor pollutants to indoor environment of data centers and cause corrosion damage to the information technology equipment. Here, to evaluate the reliability of information technology equipment under various thermal and air-pollution conditions, a mechanistic model based on multi-ion transport and chemical reactions was developed. The model was used to predict Cu corrosion caused by Cl2-containing pollutant mixtures. It also accounted for the effects of temperature (25 °C and 28 °C), relative humidity (50%, 75%, and 95%), and synergism. It also identified higher air temperature as a corrosion barrier and higher relative humidity as a corrosion accelerator, which agreed well with the experimental results. The average root mean square error of the prediction was 13.7 Å. The model can be used to evaluate the thermal guideline for data centers design and operation when Cl2 is present based on pre-established acceptable risk of corrosion in data centers’ environment.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2021

Polymer Inhibitors Enable >900 cm2 Dynamic Windows Based on Reversible Metal Electrodeposition with High Solar Modulation

Dynamic windows with adjustable tint give users control over the flow of light and heat to decrease the carbon footprint of buildings and improve the occupants’ comfort. Despite the benefits of dynamic windows, they are rarely deployed in buildings because the existing technology cannot achieve fast and colour-neutral tinting at an agreeable cost. Reversible metal electrodeposition is a promising approach to solve these problems. Here, we demonstrate the use of polymer inhibitors to reversibly deposit metal films with controlled morphology in dynamic windows. The windows that employ the polymer inhibitor can readily tint to below 0.001% visible transmittance in less than 3 min and exhibit high infrared reflectance (>70%), colour-neutral transmittance (C*<5) and an ultrawide range of optical and solar modulation (..delta..Tvis=0.76 and ..delta..SHGC=0.56). The polymer inhibitors also increase the efficiency and improve the durability of the windows and enable construction of >900 cm2 dynamic windows with fast response and excellent uniformity.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2021

Mapathons versus automated feature extraction: a comparative analysis for strengthening immunization microplanning

Background: Social instability and logistical factors like the displacement of vulnerable populations, the difficulty of accessing these populations, and the lack of geographic information for hard-to-reach areas continue to serve as barriers to global essential immunizations (EI). Microplanning, a population-based, healthcare intervention planning method has begun to leverage geographic information system (GIS) technology and geospatial methods to improve the remote identification and mapping of vulnerable populations to ensure inclusion in outreach and immunization services, when feasible. We compare two methods of accomplishing a remote inventory of building locations to assess their accuracy and similarity to currently employed microplan line-lists in the study area. Methods: The outputs of a crowd-sourced digitization effort, or mapathon, were compared to those of a machine-learning algorithm for digitization, referred to as automatic feature extraction (AFE). The following accuracy assessments were employed to determine the performance of each feature generation method: (1) an agreement analysis of the two methods assessed the occurrence of matches across the two outputs, where agreements were labeled as “befriended” and disagreements as “lonely”; (2) true and false positive percentages of each method were calculated in comparison to satellite imagery; (3) counts of features generated from both the mapathon and AFE were statistically compared to the number of features listed in the microplan line-list for the study area; and (4) population estimates for both feature generation method were determined for every structure identified assuming a total of three households per compound, with each household averaging two adults and 5 children. Results: The mapathon and AFE outputs detected 92,713 and 53,150 features, respectively. A higher proportion (30%) of AFE features were befriended compared with befriended mapathon points (28%). The AFE had a higher true positive rate (90.5%) of identifying structures than the mapathon (84.5%). The difference in the average number of features identified per area between the microplan and mapathon points was larger (t = 3.56) than the microplan and AFE (t = -2.09) (alpha = 0.05). Conclusions: Our findings indicate AFE outputs had higher agreement (i.e., befriended), slightly higher likelihood of correctly identifying a structure, and were more similar to the local microplan line-lists than the mapathon outputs. These findings suggest AFE may be more accurate for identifying structures in high-resolution satellite imagery than mapathons. However, they both had their advantages and the ideal method would utilize both methods in tandem.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Model America - Arizona extract from ORNL's AutoBEM v1.1

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has developed the Automatic Building Energy Modeling (AutoBEM) software suite to process multiple types of data, extract building-specific descriptors, generate building energy models, and simulate them on High Performance Computing (HPC) resources. For more information, see AutoBEM-related publications (bit.ly/AutoBEM).Two sets of sample data are provided for 2,555,152 buildings located within the boundary of Arizona in the United States:Data (846.3MB *.csv) - minimalist list of each building (rows) for the following fields (columns) • ID - unique building ID • Centroid - building center location in latitude/longitude (from Footprint2D) • Footprint2D - building polygon of 2D footprint (lat1/lon1_lat2/lon2_...) • State_abbr - state name • Area - estimate of total conditioned floor area (ft2) • Area2D - footprint area (ft2) • Height - building height (ft) • NumFloors - number of floors (above-grade) • WWR_surfaces - percent of each facade (pair of points from Footprint2D) covered by fenestration/windows (average 14.5% for residential, 40% for commercial buildings) • CZ - ASHRAE Climate Zone designation • BuildingType - DOE prototype building designation (IECC=residential) as implemented by OpenStudio-standards • Standard - building vintage • Sample Models (114GB*.zip by county) - OpenStudio and EnergyPlus building energy models named according to IDThis data is made free and openly available in hopes of stimulating any simulation-informed use case. Data is provided as-is with no warranties, express or implied, regarding fitness for a particular purpose. We wish to thank our sponsors which include Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), U.S. Dept. of Energy’s (DOE) Building Technologies Office (BTO), Office of Electricity (OE), and Biological and Environmental Research (BER).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

A Comprehensive Comparison of Building Height Products at a Global Level

The built environment continues to expand due to increasing human populations with some projections indicating additional growth of 2.5 billion persons by 2050. Buildings are a key component of the built environment and information on building height and urban morphology in general can help to better understand and address a host of development and urban planning issues including energy consumption, urbanization, population dynamics, urban heat islands, environmental degradation, and others. To date, several approaches have been developed to address the need for mapping building height at scale. These approaches can be grouped into two main categories: 1) directly measure height from remote sensing products or 2) indirectly estimate height from footprint morphology features at the building-by-building level. Due to a number of these global height datasets now being available for consumption and use across domains, there is a critical need to understand the differences displayed between these products and how the use of these may influence the outcome when applied. In this analysis, we compare and evaluate 5 global building height datasets: Global Human Settlement, World Settlement Footprint 3D, Global Building Morphology dataset, three-dimensional Global Building Footprints, and an approach developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Our analysis shows that, across 5 cities at a global scale with high-quality building height reference data, the approach developed by ORNL of inferring height at the building-by-building level is more accurate and consistent. This was evidenced by the ORNL product improving upon the baseline in all 5 cities, the only product to do so. These findings will aid researchers in choosing a global building height product that best meets their needs and provides global availability, consistency, and accuracy.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Decarbonization of Residential Building Energy Supply: Impact of Cogeneration System Performance on Energy, Environment, and Economics

Electrical and thermal loads of residential buildings present a unique opportunity for onsite power generation, and concomitant thermal energy generation, storage, and utilization, to decrease primary energy consumption and carbon dioxide intensity. This approach also improves resiliency and ability to address peak load burden effectively. Demand response programs and grid-interactive buildings are also essential to meet the energy needs of the 21st century while addressing climate impact. Given the significance of the scale of building energy consumption, this study investigates how cogeneration systems influence the primary energy consumption and carbon footprint in residential buildings. The impact of onsite power generation capacity, its electrical and thermal efficiency, and its cost, on total primary energy consumption, equivalent carbon dioxide emissions, operating expenditure, and, most importantly, thermal and electrical energy balance, is presented. The conditions at which a cogeneration approach loses its advantage as an energy efficient residential resource are identified as a function of electrical grid’s carbon footprint and primary energy efficiency. Compared to a heat pump heating system with a coefficient of performance (COP) of three, a 0.5 kW cogeneration system with 40% electrical efficiency is shown to lose its environmental benefit if the electrical grid’s carbon dioxide intensity falls below 0.4 kg CO 2 per kWh electricity.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Data items will occasionally be removed from OSM if they are misidentified, if they no longer exist, if they are duplicates of another item, or similar. For that reason, updated versions of this database may not contain all data center locations included in previous versions. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2022

PV Window Building Study

Data associated with the paper “Photovoltaic Windows to Offset the Intensive Energy and Carbon Footprints of Highly Glazed Buildings” by Vincent M. Wheeler, Janghyun Kim, Tom Daligault, Bryan Rosales, Chaiwat Engtrakul, Robert C. Tenent, and Lance M. Wheeler

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Machine Learning for Automated Extraction of Building Geometry

As data science comes to buildings, the promise of using machine learning and novel sources of data has received much attention. Advances in machine learning and computer vision algorithms, combined with increased access to unstructured data (e.g., images and text), have created an opportunity for automated extraction of building characteristics – cost-effectively, and at scale. Acquisition of features such as footprint are time consuming and costly to acquire with today’s manual methods, but can be streamlined through intelligent software-based solutions applied to satellite images. When combined with aerial RGB and thermal images, full 3D geometries and thermal maps can be constructed to determine additional characteristics such as window to wall ratio, height, number of stories and envelope thermal characteristics. In this paper we present three contributions to accelerate these high potential opportunities: (1) a methodical analysis of how these features can be integrated into today’s simulation and data driven software tools to enhance efficiency measure identification and owner/operator decision making; (2) development and accuracy testing of open source deep neural network methods to extract building footprints from satellite imagery, including the curation and application of openly available GIS datasets for training and continued development by others; and (3) an open framework for drone-based image capture and creation of 3D building geometries. This work represents an important bridge between high-level studies that span diverse application areas and those that detail point solutions yet cannot be easily replicated or extended.

Touzani, Samir↗
DOE OSTI2021

LLNL Buildings Shapefile

This is a shapefile for LLNL building and construction footprints for Sites 200 and 300.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway or within an airport area boundary Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) GAP status 1, 2, or 3 areas US National Parks Wetlands USFWS critical habitats BIA land areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗